In the ongoing legal battle over the ownership of Bitcoin allegedly linked to Satoshi Nakamoto, lawyers have requested the court to avoid issuing a unilateral judgment. They argue that the long-term non-transfer of Bitcoin from an address does not imply loss or abandonment of ownership. The case, which could redefine the legal understanding of self-custodied Bitcoin assets, remains unresolved. A default judgment could potentially influence the debate on whether dormant Bitcoin addresses should be considered ownerless, impacting the broader cryptocurrency legal landscape.